U.S. Drops Threat on Disputed Pledge of Secrecy

By RICHARD HALLORAN, Special to the New York Times

Published: August 22, 1987

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21—
In a surprise move, the Reagan Administration today suspended a threat to revoke the security clearance of any official who declined to sign a disputed pledge of secrecy.

A letter has been sent to the heads of all Government agencies instructing them to hold up on enforcement, said Steven Garfinckel, director of the Information Security Oversight Office, an office of the General Services Administration that is charged with setting rules for maintaining the security of secret information. Dispute Over Pledge

The pledge requires several million Government officials with security clearances not to disclose secret information, either deliberately or inadvertently, to people unauthorized to have it.

The Administration has ordered the signing of the pledge in an effort to stop the unauthorized flow of information to Congress, the press and the public. The pledge has been challenged both in court and by several members of Congress as being so broad that it is an infringement on First Amendment rights.

From the beginning of his Administration, President Reagan has sought to stem the flow of information from the Government. At times, he has complained bitterly about disclosures to the press or to Congress. The action today appears to put a check on that effort.

But Mr. Garfinckel said a Government official who improperly disclosed information could still be subject to punishment, including dismissal.

He said in an interview that he had decided to order the suspension until the course of a lawsuit could be determined. The suit, filed Monday by the National Federation of Federal Employees, charged that the form was unconstitutional.

Mr. Garfinckel indicated that while the Government considered the pledge valid, it considered it prudent to wait for some sign of pledge's legal standing before proceeding.

The program under which all Government officials holding security clearances are being asked to sign the pledge will continue, Mr. Garfinckel said. If an official refuses to sign, however, he or she will be given an individual briefing on responsibilities of preserving the secrecy of classified information, he said.

A Government official who violated those instructions, which are backed by executive orders, could be subject to punishment or dismissal. Such executive orders do not apply outside the executive branch of Government.

Mr. Garfinckel said that only a refusal to sign the pledge of secrecy was covered in the letter that went out today. Other violations of regulations covering classified information could still result in a clearance being revoked, he said.

The secrecy pledge has also been criticized by Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, and by Senator Charles A. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. They have said that the pledge could prevent Government officials from giving information to Congress that it has a right to know.

Mr. Dingell has noted that the pledge form required a worker to agree not to release ''information that is either classified or classifiable.'' That language, he said, would allow an agency to discipline a worker for releasing information that has not been classified. Reagan Directive in 1981

The dispute is rooted in a directive signed by President Reagan shortly after he took office in 1981 that was intended to reduce or stop the disclosure of information, whether secret or not, that the Administration did not want made public.

That directive said: ''Appropriate policies shall be adopted to govern contacts between media representatives and agency personnel so as to reduce the opportunity for negligent or deliberate disclosures of classified information.''

Subsequent regulations indicated that Government officials could be held responsible for ''indirect unauthorized disclosure,'' meaning that an official who gave information to a member of Congress, who, in turn, made it public could be held responsible.

Then, in 1983, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 84, making unauthorized disclosure a matter of ''high priority.'' It ordered all officials with access to classified information to sign a ''nondisclosure agreement.''

The following year, government agencies began requiring all employes with clearances to sign a pledge of secrecy. Large number of government employees are reported to have signed, but an exact number could not be determined tonight. About 25 Balked at Signing

John Reilly, who is with the Project on Military Procurement, which publishes research criticizing the Defense Department, said tonight that about 25 government officials have so far declined to sign the pledge, citing their constitutional rights.

Perhaps most prominent among them is A. Ernest Fitzgerald, an Air Force official who gained public attention in 1969 when he disclosed cost overrun on the C-5 cargo plane. He was dismissed that year, then was rehired in 1982 under court order.

Mr. Fitzgerald had been given a deadline of next Monday to sign the pledge or be confronted with the start of a process to revoke his clearance. He has said he would not sign the pledge.

Mr. Fitzgerald has been helping Mr. Dingell in an investigation of possible fraud and abuse in military contracts.

The Air Force, in a statement issued today, acknowledged that it had suspended action against Mr. Fitzgerald ''until further notice.''

Mr. Garfinckel said he did not know how long it would take to begin legal hearings on the suit brought by the Federal employees union. He added that the Government retained the right to lift the suspension and to proceed with revoking security clerarances if it appeared that the court case would be dragged out.